The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Chrunch Houston]

Tonight Trump held a rally in New Jersey. 26% were democrats, I think the dems are in real trouble.

 

[Northstar]

Where exactly are those numbers coming from? Because if they are coming from the Trump camp (which they seem to be) I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you may be interested in.

 

[huskeR32]

Tonight Trump held a rally in New Jersey. 26% were democrats, I think the dems are in real trouble.

Is attendance at a rally 100% indicative that the person is going to vote for the candidate in question? I've never read of such a correlation.

 

[mustafur]

Tonight Trump held a rally in New Jersey. 26% were democrats, I think the dems are in real trouble.

Can I quote this when Jersey goes deep blue.

 

[Dotini]

Bernie is now leading in the polls for the first 3 contests, the winning of which is traditionally a surefire indicator of nomination. Obama, Hillary, even Warren are lining up to take him down before it's too late. Will they succeed?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Where exactly are those numbers coming from? Because if they are coming from the Trump camp (which they seem to be) I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you may be interested in.

Yes, Brad Parscale is Trump's campaign manager.

I am not sure, but it would seem to me that lying about numbers like these would be fraud against Trump donors.

Is attendance at a rally 100% indicative that the person is going to vote for the candidate in question? I've never read of such a correlation.

No, but the media was saying the same thing in 2016. And son of a bitch, he won.

Can I quote this when Jersey goes deep blue.

Yes of course. It is a long shot that Trump will win New Jersey. Of course Reagan won New Jersey 1984. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[huskeR32]

Yes, Brad Parscale is Trump's campaign manager.

An impeccable source, to be sure.

No, but the media was saying the same thing in 2016. And son of a bitch, he won.

The media was saying what? That not everyone in attendance would vote for him? How does Trump winning disprove that? I'm sure a vast majority of Trump's voters never attended any of his rallies, and a good number of people who did attend the rallies didn't vote for him. I still don't see that any importance should be assigned to this.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I still don't see that any importance should be assigned to this.

Yep, that is what the media was saying in 2016.

 

[PocketZeven]

When Trump wins the Trial, I guess he can start withholding funding to any state and ask for investigation on all his democrat and republican opponents. His election is apparantly in the name of "public interest".

 

[Dotini]

When Trump wins the Trial, I guess he can start withholding funding to any state and ask for investigation on all his democrat and republican opponents. His election is apparantly in the name of "public interest".

Trump may or may not "win the Trial". If he should, you can be sure the Gates of Hell will be opened as he spews out his hatred and revenge on Democrats and RINO traitors . On the other hand, I expect he will be immediately impeached again by his opponents, will be harried until his dying day, and cursed thereafter unto Eternity. It's all good.

 

[jjaisli]

I wasn't born in New Jersey but I've been a Joisy resident since 1999. There was a Republican governor in office when I moved to this state and back to the US. And New Jersey has elected two Republican Governors since. The rest democrat. There have been colossal embarrassments on both the red and the blue side (Jim McGreevy (D) and Chris Christie (R) in particular come to mind). And there are certain areas of New Jersey that are strong (traditional*) republican strongholds--Ocean and Sussex counties come to mind. But there are also a lot of registered independents like myself, who have voted both ways.

Interestingly enough, I live in a rather rural area, close to the New York State border. And while the majority of my county is Democrat, my township is heavily Republican. But as I mentioned above, many of my neighbors have traditional Republican VALUES and concepts, and they're not necessarily Trump supporters.

Since 1992, NJ has voted Democrat in every presidential election, strongly so, and I don't expect that trend to change in the short term. At this point, the Democrats could put a mortally wounded cockroach on the ticket and this state would still shy away from Trump. I'm pretty confident of that. Sure there are dyed in the wool, hardcore (and deluded) Trump Supporters out there but they're in the minority. But there's a reason for that. Aside from still having a bad taste in it's mouth from Chris Christie, there are many people who grew up in this state and knew of Donald Trump or were burned by Donald Trump or had a friend of a friend of a cousin who were hurt by Donald Trump, in a bad business or construction or real estate deal. People in the NY/CT/NJ area know Donald Trump and KNEW Donald Trump long before he was a Hollywood Reality TV star. And the man screwed a LOT of people. And in many cases he got away with it because he was a rich bastard who could keep things tied up in the courts until his opponents gave up the fight. There is a reason that Donald Trump lost in his home state in 2016 and it's more than just NY being a "liberal stronghold".

There are people who will simply vote D or R no matter what. And there are people who are traditional Republican and HATE trump but they'll still vote for him or abstain, because they can't bring themselves to make another choice. And there are those people, mostly the Elite class who may or may not like Trump but they'll still vote for him because they believe having a Republican in office will be better for their bottom line. And this applies both in NJ and the rest of the country.

Brad Parscale can say whatever he wants. Ain't NO WAY this state is voting for Trump. People here have had his number for a long time. He can continue fooling all the good salt of the earth folk from the rest of the country who really believe that a rich, narcissistic, NY billionaire with a history of screwing over the little guy, really cares about them and is on their side.

 

[Imari]

On the other hand, I expect he will be immediately impeached again by his opponents,...

On what grounds and for what purpose? I don't see any stronger arguments for impeachment than those that came up during this saga, and I fail to see what any opponents stand to gain through forcing another trial where Republicans steadfastly refuse to look at evidence that they won't have gained through this one.

 

[Dotini]

On what grounds and for what purpose? I don't see any stronger arguments for impeachment than those that came up during this saga, and I fail to see what any opponents stand to gain through forcing another trial where Republicans steadfastly refuse to look at evidence that they won't have gained through this one.

On the same grounds and for the same purpose. But this time, they will take the time to subpoena Bolton and present better evidence, and take the time necessary to go through the court system to get around the objection of Executive Privilege.

 

[ryzno]

I know it is a little off topic but I'll post this here anyways.
I don't know if y'all remember Stacey Abrams. Well she says she'll be President by 2040! What a huge claim for(IMO) an unknown State Representative, who lost her run for Governor last election. And her whole campaign seemed to only revolve around "voter fraud". Which the local investigation has found zero evidence of...
I find it kinda interesting unknown Democrats across the Nation are becoming the parties "up and comers". My question is what have Stacey, AOC, etc... actually done in the government besides a lot of promises with no proof of success?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/stacey-abrams-president-2040-109869

 

[Joey D]

My question is what have Stacey, AOC, etc... actually done in the government besides a lot of promises with no proof of success?

The same thing most politicians do, talk a whole bunch, accept a bunch of money, go on CNN/Fox News, and take a bunch of vacations.

 

[Dotini]

My question is what have Stacey, AOC, etc... actually done in the government besides a lot of promises with no proof of success?

Prediction: AOC will serve 3 terms as president, with Sanders substituting for her in the first.

 

[huskeR32]

And her whole campaign seemed to only revolve around "voter fraud". Which the local investigation has found zero evidence of...

You have to admit it's pretty shady that her opponent refused to recuse himself from presiding over the election in which he himself was a candidate. If the parties in that election had been reversed, you and every other GOP voter would have been screaming corruption at the top of your lungs.

Also, pretty ironic that you only remember her unfounded claims of voter fraud, but seem to have selectively forgotten that a mere 72 hours before the election, he used his office to open an investigation against the Georgia Democratic party, alleging that if there was any voter fraud, it was because they hacked it. Was there any evidence to support that claim either? Hell no. Why don't you seem to care about that "zero evidence" claim as much as you do the other?

 

[Dotini]

The Iowa Caucuses are tomorrow night. Possibly 4 or 5 candidates could share in the delegates at stake there. Biden and Sanders are leading narrowly in the polls. Next come New Hampshire and Nevada. It's possible Sanders could win them all. It is my understanding that no candidate in US history has won the first 3 contests without also going on to win the nomination.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You have to admit it's pretty shady that her opponent refused to recuse himself from presiding over the election in which he himself was a candidate.

No different really than there are senators running as opposition to Trump for the 2020 election for the highest office in the country and I did not see one of them recuse themselves from presiding over and voting on whether to remove the opponent they would be running against from office in an impeachment trial which very well could have an affect on the election.
Seems that it depends on which side of the fence the issue falls whom considers what shady or not acceptable. There are always two sides to an issue!

 

[Joey D]

No different really than there are senators running as opposition to Trump for the 2020 election for the highest office in the country and I did not see one of them recuse themselves from presiding over and voting on whether to remove the opponent they would be running against from office in an impeachment trial which very well could have an affect on the election.
Seems that it depends on which side of the fence the issue falls whom considers what shady or not acceptable. There are always two sides to an issue!

Probably because Congresspeople are elected and paid to do their job, which includes the impeachment and removal process if needed.

And I'm not sure how much of a bearing it would've actually had on the election. Chances are Pence would've ended up running and I'm guessing people who support Trump also support Pence. Or a miracle could've happened and Pence wouldn't have run and the Republicans would have nominated a candidate that's actually read the Constitution at least once.

 

[huskeR32]

No different really than there are senators running as opposition to Trump for the 2020 election for the highest office in the country and I did not see one of them recuse themselves from presiding over and voting on whether to remove the opponent they would be running against from office in an impeachment trial which very well could have an affect on the election.

Absurd comparison. Even if you could show that the removing Trump from office would directly help elect one of the Senators, and I don't think that you could, that's still several layers removed. Kemp presided directly over an election he himself was a candidate in (and ultimately won, narrowly). Presiding over that trial was a Constitutionally-mandated duty of Senators, and there is nobody else for them to cede that duty to if they recuse themselves.

Seems that it depends on which side of the fence the issue falls whom considers what shady or not acceptable. There are always two sides to an issue!

Nope. Nice try, though.

 

[mustafur]

Prediction: AOC will serve 3 terms as president, with Sanders substituting for her in the first.

Your Prediction couldn't factor in the part of her age? Too young to even go for Pres in 2024.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Your Prediction couldn't factor in the part of her age? Too young to even go for Pres in 2024.

No, that's incorrect. Firstly there's no age limit on running for President or being President-Elect, only on being President. She'd be 35 before the election and therefore the swearing-in.

 

[Keef]

Iowa caucus tonight and a poll came out suggesting Bernie has a decent lead. I'm hoping it sticks. Ron Paul may never have gotten much traction but, politics aside, I'm in support of a principled, reliable, and respectful president who hopefully can effect the culture of Washington which we all know has truly fell off a cliff the past few years.

 

[Danoff]

Superbowl ad: *gruff voice* Others talked about criminal justice reform, Donald Trump got it done, and this black woman get freed from a life sentence in prison because of it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-faces-backlash-over-super-bowl-ad-on-alice-marie-johnson-release

He pardoned her. I said it during the ad and my wife was like "no, no way, they said criminal justice reform, that's not just pardoning". Yup. That's what he did. Actually technically it was clemency since it was a reduction of sentence rather than removing it, but as I understand it the power of the executive to do this is often referred to as the pardon power.

Anyway, there's your criminal justice reform... people that Kim Kardashian lobbies the president in favor of might get a presidential act specifically for them.

 

[Biggles]

Iowa caucus tonight and a poll came out suggesting Bernie has a decent lead. I'm hoping it sticks. Ron Paul may never have gotten much traction but, politics aside, I'm in support of a principled, reliable, and respectful president who hopefully can effect the culture of Washington which we all know has truly fell off a cliff the past few years.

I think Bernie would make a perfectly fine President - as you say: principled, reliable & respectful. It's unlikely he would be able to get any of his more radical proposals through Congress as not only Republicans, but a good number of Democrats would oppose them. It would certainly make an interesting contrast to Trump - like Carter after Nixon.

 

[Keef]

It's unlikely he would be able to get any of his more radical proposals through Congress as not only Republicans, but a good number of Democrats would oppose them.

That's probably true and there's not necessarily anything wrong with it, as there are some changes he could make as the executive which would produce huge results, like changing marijuana enforcement. This is also the reason that people "worried" about Bernie shouldn't worry, because unlike Trump he won't have a bird-brained political party blindly following his every command.

 

[mustafur]

They are already talking about bringing back Super delegates on the 1st Ballot because of Bernie, if they do this crap again but this time he actually leads in pledged delegates I think they will lose alot of voters over this.

 

[Darla Starch]

They are already talking about bringing back Super delegates on the 1st Ballot because of Bernie, if they do this crap again but this time he actually leads in pledged delegates I think they will lose alot of voters over this.

Oooh, ooh, I've seen this play before . (Next play is contingent on the Berninator. If he loses the nomination, the eventual nominee will run a relatively uninspired campaign based mostly off of "I'm not the sentient-Dorito-in-Chief".)

 

[Liquid]

Iowa caucus tonight and a poll came out suggesting Bernie has a decent lead

They are already talking about bringing back Super delegates on the 1st Ballot because of Bernie, if they do this crap again but this time he actually leads in pledged delegates I think they will lose alot of voters over this.